There were so many weird lapses in logic in the text that he presented last night. He said that China was doing a lot of infrastructural building, but that we could beat them, building their infrastructure right here!

" Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us a economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America? (Applause.)

There are private construction companies all across America just waiting to get to work. There’s a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that’s on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America. A public transit project in Houston that will help clear up one of the worst areas of traffic in the country. And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating."

He's not sure which country he's talking about, and then he's not sure of the difference between the private and the public sphere. If private construction companies take on public works, and are paid out of the treasury, this doesn't really count in terms of them remaining private, does it?

He should have gone over this speech and ironed out the logic before he gave it. He's so used to no one checking his facts and his transitions. But people are beginning to check. Even the MSM is getting fed up with this nut.

Yes, Palin for sure knows more about history than Obama. Of course she does. He was busy studying marxism at Columbia and Harvard. Palin is incredible smart and articulate, and it's only because Obama is black that she didn't single handedly win the election for McCain.

Astounding! The Republican party was founded in Ripon, WI! Even more amazing; the town still exists! I am assuming that this is due to the good people of Madison being too lazy to burn it down and plow salt into the earth.

NYT article today takes an objective look at Palin's 5 points in Indianola TParty speech, and the commenters response is overwhelmingly exalting the writer for actually reporting a factual discussion. Instead of the usual character assisination done on Palin.

This about that...readers are patting the writer on the back for being objective. That would be funny if not so pathetic.

The most salient point of the article is that...wait for it...Palin actually makes excellent and factually accurate points. Whoa, rein it in bubba! First we see acclaim for a factual article and then aknowledgment of a factual speaker.

I'd say, this bell cannot be "unrung"...perhaps the shilling and selling of Obama as smart and facts as biggotry and racism is like most things, experiencing a pendulum swing back to reality.

Nothing about Obama and the Progs stands up to fact check or vetting. Palin and the Tea Party have been vetted into the next century and they are still here.

She announces, joins the debate and the bell rings out...MSM unable to "unring" it and the we're off in a new direction.

I wonder how long it will be after The end of his presidency, that we will begin hearing calls that now its time to elect our first "real" black president? or if the Left will remain perpetually cowed by this imposter ?

Around these parts, we've been waiting for a new bridge to cross the St. Croix river between Stillwater, MN and Houlton, WI for about 15 years. Houses and farms have been purchased and the land is sitting idle (no property taxes are being paid). It ain't the Republican or Tea Party holding the construction up.

Half of the money little man obama is talking about will go to the EPA and other such nonsense. Anyone who listens to this little man and thinks he has good ideas, is a fool.

Question... Not to pick on Lincoln, but does anyone here believe that the transcontinental railroad would NOT have happened if the Federal Government hadn't gotten into the act? Lincoln and the Feds just sped up the process.

Scott: Apparently (didn't hear it either) he said that Lincoln founded the Republican Party. The GOP was founded in 1854, a year that saw Lincoln run for U.S. Senate in Illinois as a Whig (this, of course, being an era in which U.S. Senators were elected by state legislatures). He was, however, prominent in the GOP by 1856. He was the first Republican POTUS, but Fremont in 1856 was the first Republican to run for POTUS.

As I understand it the Transcontinental Railroad Act cost the taxpayers almost nil. The two participating contractors were in it for the ten miles of right-of-way they would gain title to by laying track on Federal land.

"If John C. Frémont wasn't the founder of the Republican Party, then who was?"

I think that's like asking who the founder of the TEA Party was. You'd probably argue there is no such party (at least recognized as such by all at a national level). I think the Repubs went through a similar sort of genesis. It really wasn't founded by any one person, but was more of a coalescence of previous parties and movements. In my opinion.

I think they both, Palin and Obama, miss the historical mark, and Obama could have correctly said, the party of Lincoln as Republicans sometimes refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln. " And Kirby if you lived in Wisconsin during the Thompson years you would have seen how many "private" companies flourished building our highways paid for by a combination of federal and state tax dollars-- yes they still are private just like the million or so private contractors paid by the government to protect us from terrorist. You are the one missing the logic of these arrangements.

But the point, Roesch-Voltaire, is that he's still spending our money. This is supposed to be about getting jobs in the private sector. Wasn't that the point of his speech? Or was it again about 245,000 dollars for each new job, and that he's willing to throw even more money into that balogna to get his job numbers up, even if it continues to increase the deficit? He's already up to 14 trillion. Does he want to get to 15 trillion by Turkey Day? Just pass it, he says, then we'll vet it with the CBO.

Question... Not to pick on Lincoln, but does anyone here believe that the transcontinental railroad would NOT have happened if the Federal Government hadn't gotten into the act? Lincoln and the Feds just sped up the process.

It was going to happen anyway. The Gadsden Purchase was all about transcontinental railroads and so was proving the feasibility of the Central Overland route by stagecoach and the Pony Express.

What Questor said is on the money. The big emolument was the land grants. A railroad to California would be profitable, but populating the Great American Desert would put a lot of people on the hook to the UP and CP forever.

Of course, along with all that came the Credit Mobilier Scandal, which helped do in the Grant Administration.

Crimso said...

Scott:Apparently (didn't hear it either) he said that Lincoln founded the Republican Party. The GOP was founded in 1854, a year that saw Lincoln run for U.S. Senate in Illinois as a Whig (this, of course, being an era in which U.S. Senators were elected by state legislatures). He was, however, prominent in the GOP by 1856. He was the first Republican POTUS, but Fremont in 1856 was the first Republican to run for POTUS.

May we all be glad Barry didn't think Kit Carson was the Pathfinder's running mate.

Very interesting article about Palin, by a liberal. The fascinating thing to me is that the author's surprise is based entirely on totally misunderstanding conservatives. This is standard conservative philosophy.

I think "Founder of the Republican Party" was an ad-lib. The official text, released before the speech, reads:

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future — a Republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad...

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future -- a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad -- (applause)

Kirby one way to get jobs into the private sector is to award private companies contracts for things, as a nation, that we need and use. How do you think Lockheed exists? How do you think the private companies that own and run the nuclear plants exist--that's how governments work, and why they can add jobs to the private sector.

R-V: The government can (and must) hire people, but every dime it pays out comes from the private sector.

Your nuclear power example is a perfect case AGAINST your proposition. The cost of power production underlays almost every product and service created in a modern economy. We want to produce as much power as possible at as little cost. Depending on the energy sector to create jobs is a stick in the eye of real productivity.

This is one reason why the whole "green jobs" idea has been such a fiasco. Green jobs are expensive. Expensive power cripples the economy.

The American Whig Party foundered as a national political party in the 1840's as attitudes about slavery hardened and it became potentially hazardous to one's health to be suspected of not being a true-blue Democrat in the South.The Republican Party was founded by former Whigs as a sectional Northern party and welcoming anyone who did not like Democrats for whatever reason, so the party definitely started out as a rag-tag motley coalition of discontents and malcontents. The fire was largely provided by "free soilers" and "Yankee abolitionists," but the political expertise and leadership was by fairly moderate former Whigs who invited their former colleague and dear friend, Mr. Abraham Lincoln, Esq. of Springfield, Ill., to join them and become a candidate on the Republican Platform to which he somewhat reluctantly agreed.

Something I've tried to question recently: What is the basis for my assumption that a politician is smart or dumb?

It's interesting how much of these impressions are just quickly programmed into us by repetition in reporting. Sure, people can point to a single event or salient fact that confirms their beliefs, but how valid is it when such events are edited, editorialized, and labeled for us.

Case in point: Palin is dumb. Is there objective proof of that? Not really, but I hear about the 'data points' of her dumbness all the time--doesn't read papers, attended multiple colleges, etc. Are these really valid? Most aren't.

What about Biden? I've rarely heard a politician make such unbelievable gaffes as he. It's not just a word or two out of place, or an incorrect number, or a flubbed detail--the guy literally makes up entire events. I've got to think that he ad libs because he just doesn't know. And yet Biden was sold to us as some kind of foreign policy genius, an elder statesman lending gravitas to Obama. Does anyone actually believe that now?

And please don't tell me Obama's smart because of Harvard and the law review. Credentials are not the same thing as intelligence.

And in 1860 the Democrats split into three parties, or at least three sets of candidates - from the hard slavery South, medium border states, and wishy-washy copperhead North - and Mr. Lincol and the Republican Party won the election for President with about 34% of the popular vote, if my memory serves.

We keep hearing people tell us how smart Obama is. Just this morning at Ace's place I ran across the following from someone named Russ Smith defending Obama's intelligence in an Op Ed:

There are [the] usual caveats: Of course Obama isn’t illiterate or Bush-dumb because as Jesse Louis Jackson once said, “God doesn’t make junk,” and the intelligence-challenged just aren’t allowed near Harvard, much less become editor of that university’s Law Review.

Yet when we look at Obama all this supposed intelligence is hard to see. What has he ever done to demonstrate his intelligence? He has spent his life as a community organizer. OK, can anyone show me his accomplishments in that field? How did he make his community better?

As a state and US senator: What has he accomplished or even tried to accomplish?

Seriously folks, if you want to tell us how wicked smart Obama is you really need to start providing some evidence.

There was no true "federal government" until the US Civil War. It was a confederation of states whose citizens identified more with their states than the USA. (Think of R.E. Lee's decision to fight for "my country Virginia" rather than accept command of the Union forces.

Abraham Lincoln fans (among whom I count myself) must accept that he bears some responsibility for today's Washington-driven approach to just about everything. He federalized American life for a noble cause, but unintended consequences are a bitch.

The transcontinental railroad furthered the cause of having a UNITED States rather than a collection of sovereign states. It was a good idea at the time, but seeing how a strong central government has transmogrofied into an ossified DC bureaucracy telling citizens how to lead their lives, I'd say that we have long had too much of a "good thing".

Abraham Lincoln fans (among whom I count myself) must accept that he bears some responsibility for today's Washington-driven approach to just about everything.

I grew up practically worshiping Lincoln. Then I learned a little history. It's hard to worship someone who had half of Maryland's legislature locked up because otherwise Maryland secedes. Or who suspended habeas corpus. In terms of violators of the principles of the Founding Fathers, only FDR comes close.

I lean toward thinking that what Lincoln did had to be done, on moral grounds that the founders of this country could accept. I lean toward thinking that FDR would have been bitch-slapped by every signer of the Deceleration of Independence.

Obama has none of the strength of will or moral certitude that either Lincoln or FDR had, so whatever his real agenda, he will, in the end, be a hero to no one.

The saddest thing in the election of Obama is that the first Black POTUS will forever be Barack Obama.